WizardofOz
New member
What is it that you think happened on August 15th, 1945?
Roy Moore: America Was 'Great' During 'Slavery'
- Thread starter jgarden
- Start date
What is it that you think happened on August 15th, 1945?
Slavery is an issue for Democrats, not conservatives. The Democratic party was the party of slavery in the mid 1800s. The Republican party was formed by members of a couple of different parties, but mostly of former Whigs, who were opposed to slavery. The main intention, and cause behind forming it, was fighting slavery. Solomon Chase, Charles Sumner--the guy that was beaten so badly by a Southern Democrat using a cane on the floor of the Senate while in session that it took him two years to recover enough to get back to the Senate--and Horace Greeley the abolutionist newspaper man, were influential in getting it started. Abraham Lincoln joined it within a very short time after it was started.
Stephen Douglass, mostly known today because of the Lincoln-Douglass debates which Lincoln made into a referendum on slavery, was a northern Democrat. The southern Democrats were all slaveowners and it was one of them who beat Charles Sumner almost to death on the floor of the Senate because of Sumner's stand on slavery. In fact, by the time the war started, as has been brought out by Dinesh D'Souza, there were no Republican slaveholders. Democrats owned all the slaves. This ought to be glaringly obvious as the Republican party was formed to fight slavery so what slaveowner would join it, but the disinformation trolls don't care a whole lot about their honesty on this subject.
As the Democrats, both before and after the Civil War, were completely dominant in the south they were the political party of the Jim Crow laws. Those laws were not federal laws. They were all state laws. They were all passed by Democratically controlled legislatures and signed into law by Democratic governors. And, the KKK was the creation of Democrats. It was basically the terrorist arm of the Democrat party. What's more someone couldn't get elected as a Democrat in the south for a long time without being a member of the KKK. That was reality until into the 1930s or so.
It was a Republican adminstration that desegregated the federal government shortly after the Civil War, and it was Woodrow Wilson, a southern Democrat, who re-segregated the federal government in the early 1900s. It was also the Democrats who fought the Civil Rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s. They filibustered it, led by Robert Byrd. Had it not been for overwhelming support by the Republicans in Congress those bills would have gone down to defeat.
These are the historical facts. The history of slavery and racism is dominated by the Democratic party, not the Republican party. So it is the left that has the long and shameful history with respect to slavery, not conservatives.
That was VJ day, but VJ day was brought about by what happened on August the 6th and the 9th when the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I gave a very conservative estimate of the number of lives saved by those two events. I've seen estimates as high as 10 million lives saved by those two events, for the Japanese would have had to been almost wiped out as a people before they would have surrendered because of their concepts of honor. Think Okinawa on steroids. The two atomic bombs gave their politicians and emperor a reason to be able to surrender and save face. Otherwise a conventional invasion of Japan would have been a horrendously large cost in lives, both Japanese and American.
WizardofOz
New member
Sure, but I didn't say a thing about the bombs. I think you had your dates confused.
America was indeed great when we won WWII. I wasn't saying a disparaging thing about the US in my original post. That's why your response "Yeah, saving an estimated million American and Japanese lives is just obscene. That is so evil it's hard to comprehend" made no sense.
If we judge past societies based on our current norms then we may be hard-pressed to say any of them was 'great'. And I can see how that approach might seem unnecessary or unfair. But I also don't see the value in making such a declaration. Each society has good parts and bad parts. What value do we get in declaring one 'great' overall? :idunno:
I also think optics can matter. I'm curious to see how conservative black voters feel about the comment.
I also think optics can matter. I'm curious to see how conservative black voters feel about the comment.
This has little do with the fact that Neoconservatism is starting to die, and doesn't appeal to minorities.
The Venona Intercepts proved that McCarthy was right.
You have read the Venona Intercepts haven't you?
Regarding J Edgar Hoover:
He was the lone voice in the Roosevelt administration that spoke out against the internment (i.e the imprisonment and loss of all constitutional rights such as Due Process) of Americans of Japanese descent.
Pretty evil huh?
The problem with McCarthy is that he would have started and authoritarian panic. I could accuse McCarthy of communism, but back then it would [not] stick as good. He was trying to stir things up.
Last edited:
The fact that Russians were spying on us doesn't mean McCarthy was right in claiming that General Marshall was a communist or that that the US Army was riddled with communists. Ironically, Marshall actually was instrumental in destroying communist parties in Western Europe. The Soviets were right; the Marshall Plan was as much a plan to undermine Marxist parties in Europe as it was to rebuild the continent.
And of course, McCarthy, by meddling in red-baiting, actually was instrumental in helping Soviet spies evade capture. Would you like to learn about that?
Hoover?
Curt Gentry`s impressive biography and Athan Theoharis` fascinating collection of Hoover`s secret memoranda make unlikely any future positive assessment of Hoover`s career. The warts are all. Theoharis` earlier biography and specialized studies, and Richard Gid Power`s splendid biography, significantly reversed Hoover`s status in the American Pantheon. Gentry, who colloborated with Vincent Bugliosi on ``Helter Skelter,`` has worked on this book for more than 15 years, and he rounds out the portrait with substantial new evidence of Hoover`s abuse of power.
The facts are devastating. Despite heroic attempts to shred his files that were made just before and after his death, the reputation of the man who lived by paper now is destroyed by that paper. For nearly 20 years, historians have tracked FBI files through Freedom of Information requests. Perhaps none has been more indefatigable than Theoharis, a Marquette University historian whose earlier works exposed Hoover`s countless illegal activities, including unauthorized buggings and ``black-bag`` jobs. ``From the Secret Files`` gives us an annotated glimpse of Hoover and the FBI at work, revealing Hoover`s pettiness and abuse of power at their fullest.
Gentry, too, has carefully tracked the paper trail. His well-documented study demonstrates that Hoover was a monumental egotist with an insatiable demand for flattering publicity; that he had little respect for American constitutional and libertarian values; that he was above all an aggrandizing bureaucrat, whose reach knew no bounds; and that he expanded his power and survived through abuses that amounted to little less than blackmail of prominent public officials and private citizens and personal intimidation toward any person or institution daring to question his authority. Eleanor Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, OSS chief William Donovan and numerous public personalities in politics and entertainment were among his victims.
Taken together, these books are essential for dispelling the mythology fostered by Hoover and his acolytes. The legend does not square with the facts. Hoover was not the fearless G-Man of the 1930s Hollywood and media hype, the man who burnished his image by portraying a few criminal desperados as monsters threatening the nation`s security. Far from being a relentless crime fighter, Hoover spent a great deal of time padding stolen-car recoveries while persistently denying the existence of the Mafia. The man who well into the early 1970s insisted that the Communist Party was a menace, knew that his agents thoroughly infiltrated the party and indeed bankrolled many of its activities. By the end of Hoover`s reign, the United States government may have been the largest contributor to Communist Party coffers.
Yep. Truly, he and his henchmen comprised a "deep state." Would you like some details from the files he failed to destroy?
Outside of the South both parties were actively involved in Civil Rights measures. The Democrats in the South were the principal opponent of it. And most of them abandoned that party over time and took up residence in the Republican party.
If you break down the vote among states that were a part of the Union vs states that had supported the Confederacy, you'll see that 100% of the pro Union Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act. 85% of the pro Union Republicans voted for it. Meaning that outside of the South Democrats were more solidly behind the act than their Republican cousins, though the lesser majority is still a profound one.
I see that the same person who posts bold faced lies about Judge Roy Moore doesn't want to talk about the Venona Intercepts and how Russian spies infiltrated not only the US State Dept., but other areas such as academia and Hollywood. Regarding General George Marshall and his communist connections:
Traitor George C. Marshall
Exposed By Sen Joe McCarthy
The History Of George Catlett Marshall
http://rense.com/general79/mc.htm
We're talking about depriving American citizens of their constitutional rights without Due Process of the law.
Lying, character smearing, racist, left wing tyrants do know what "Due Process of the law" means don't they?
SUTG
New member
You do realize that many black Americans also had "darkies" working for them, right?
People like to talk about slavery as if it's some sort of aberration within a otherwise virtuous society. But, as people in the old South understood, it was the cornerstone of society, and it infected everything. It was the instrument by which families were ripped apart. It was the foundation of wealth and aspiration throughout the South. And the inequality that it enshrined was never totally abolished.
Roy Moore may not exactly wish to return to formal slavery, although I don't think you can take his position for granted either way. But especially in light of his comments recently regarding the amendments after the 10th, which would include the 13th abolishing slavery, and the 14th, preventing states from treating people unequally, and the 19th, extending the franchise to women throughout the country, it should at least be understood that he exhibits a callous disregard for the rights of many citizens.
WizardofOz
New member
| Roy Moore in 2011: Getting rid of amendments after 10th would 'eliminate many problems' By Andrew Kaczynski, CNN (CNN)Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore appeared on a conspiracy-driven radio show twice in 2011, where he told the hosts in an interview that getting rid of constitutional amendments after the Tenth Amendment would 'eliminate many problems' in the way the US government is structured. Alabama's special election for Senate, in which Moore is facing Democrat Doug Jones, will be held Tuesday. Moore's controversial views on a variety of subjects -- including homosexuality, Islam, and evolution -- have come into sharper focus in the final days of the campaign, even as Moore has had to deal with multiple accusations from women who say that he sexually assaulted or pursued relationships with them as teenagers when he was in his 30s. Moore has denied all allegations. Moore also faced criticism for comments he made in September at a campaign rally. According to the Los Angeles Times, when asked by a black member of the audience when he thought the last time America was great, Moore answered, "I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another. Our families were strong, our country had a direction." Moore made his comments about constitutional amendments in a June 2011 appearance on the "Aroostook Watchmen" show, which is hosted by Maine residents Jack McCarthy and Steve Martin. The hosts have argued that the US government is illegitimate and who have said that the September 11, 2001, attacks, the mass shooting at Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, and other mass shootings and terrorist attacks are false flag attacks committed by the government. (False flag attacks refer to acts that are designed by perpetrators to be made to look like they were carried out by other individuals or groups.) The hosts have also spread conspiracy theories about the raid that led to the death of Osama Bin Laden and have pushed the false claim that former President Barack Obama was not born in the US. CNN's KFile obtained audio from Moore's two appearances on the show. In the same June episode, Moore invoked Adolf Hitler in a discussion about Obama's birth certificate. In a May 2011 episode, Moore told the two radio hosts, who have repeatedly rejected the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks, that he would be open to hearings looking into "what really happened" on that day. In Moore's June appearance, one of the hosts says he would like to see an amendment that would void all the amendments after the Tenth. "That would eliminate many problems," Moore replied. "You know people don't understand how some of these amendments have completely tried to wreck the form of government that our forefathers intended." Moore cited the 17th Amendment, which calls for the direct election of senators by voters rather than state legislatures, as one he particularly found troublesome. The host agreed with Moore, before turning his attention to the 14th Amendment, which was passed during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War and guaranteed citizenship and equal rights and protection to former slaves and has been used in landmark Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell v. Hodges. "People also don't understand, and being from the South I bet you get it, the 14th Amendment was only approved at the point of the gun," the host said. "Yeah, it had very serious problems with its approval by the states," Moore replied. "The danger in the 14th Amendment, which was to restrict, it has been a restriction on the states using the first Ten Amendments by and through the 14th Amendment. To restrict the states from doing something that the federal government was restricted from doing and allowing the federal government to do something which the first Ten Amendments prevented them from doing. If you understand the incorporation doctrine used by the courts and what it meant. You'd understand what I'm talking about." Moore explained further that the first ten amendments restricted the federal government in certain areas. "For example, the right to keep and bear arms, the First Amendment, freedom of press liberty. Those various freedoms and restrictions have been imposed on the states through the 14th Amendment. And yet the federal government is violating just about every one of them saying that -- they don't they don't -- are not restrained by them." Besides the 14th and 17th Amendments, amendments adopted after the Bill of Rights include the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, the 15th Amendment which prohibited the federal and state governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on that person's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude," and the 19th Amendment, which extended the right to vote to women. Moore's campaign spokesman told CNN's KFile that Moore does not believe all amendments after the Tenth should be eliminated. "Once again, the media is taking a discussion about the overall framework for the separation of powers as laid out in the constitution to twist Roy Moore's position on specific issues," Doster said in an emailed statement. "Roy Moore does not now nor has he ever favored limiting an individual's right to vote, and as a judge, he was noted for his fairness and for being a champion of civil rights. "Judge Moore has expressed concern, as many other conservatives have, that the historical trend since the ratification of the Bill of Rights has been for federal empowerment over state empowerment." In the same June episode, Moore invoked Adolf Hitler in a discussion about Obama's birth certificate. Moore has in the past repeatedly questioned Obama's citizenship. "Now let me ask you a question. You think that Barry Soetoro -- oh I'm sorry, Barack Obama -- you think you could get the security clearance that you got," a host asked. "Well, I don't know about that. I don't know. I haven't, I haven't explored that. But my personal opinion. My personal opinion --," Moore responded. "I think his dog could get a security clearance easier, the dog's got papers," the host interjected. "I know what you mean Jack," Moore said. The host then said that when he was in the military, Obama's documentation would not suffice to get him on a submarine. Moore responded, "Well that's, that's a problem. You know Hitler once said, 'you tell a big enough lie long enough, people to believe it.' And that's that's the problem. We've got to look at simple facts of the case, and we need to recognize we need a new administration in Washington. And it just doesn't, based upon party, we need like people that uphold the Constitution not undermine it." |
'Hitler once said, 'you tell a big enough lie long enough, people to believe it.'
Fortunately not everyone is falling for the lies that you Libertarians/liberals have perpetuated against Judge Roy Moore Aaron.
Fortunately not everyone is falling for the lies that you Libertarians/liberals have perpetuated against Judge Roy Moore Aaron.
And that justifies it, because...?
Even his fellow republicans are saying that the many witnesses against him are more credible than his faint denials. He says he "generally didn't" date minor children. I see your hero, Trump is backing Moore also.
As you know the intercepts (by the U.S. Army, which McCarthy falsely claimed was riddled with Soviet spies) showed that McCarthy's claims of communists everywhere was not supported by the facts. His slander of George Marshall was particularly egregious, since unlike McCarthy, Marshall was a major force in stopping Soviet penetration of Western Europe.
The Marshall Plan, which the Soviets constantly criticized, was highly effective:
And yet conservatives such as James Burnham and Joseph McCarthy should have appreciated containment in general, and George C. Marshall in particular, as representative of solid conservative principles. For the most part they did not. In 1950, on the floor of the United States Senate, William Jenner, a McCarthyite senator from Indiana, called General Marshall “a front man for traitors” and “a living lie,” apparently because Marshall, Jenner supposed, was in league with the administration’s Communist appeasers, who, guided and directed by Harry Truman and Dean Acheson, were “selling America down the river.”[3]
Understandably, by the early 1950s Marshall could feel more set upon by militant right-wingers than by Communists. When he received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo in 1953, three young reporters from the local Communist newspaper protested by shouting from the balcony and by dropping leaflets on the audience below. General Marshall told the Norwegian gentleman who had made his presentation speech, the Conservative politician C. J. Hambro, that at home he was used to being jeered at by anti-Communists, not by Communists.[4] ...To gain a sense of these legislators’ dilemmas, a student of history might begin with the July 1945 Potsdam Conference, where the conferees created the Council of Foreign Ministers. This body was to negotiate peace treaties with former enemy nations. The crucial fourth set of meetings began on March 10, 1947, in Moscow. At work in the Soviet capital, Secretary of State George C. Marshall found that these sessions were becoming increasingly hard to sit through, both physically and psychologically. Soviet intransigence, he realized, was tied to conditions in Western Europe.
In 1946 the Communists had received the largest number and percentage of votes of any French party (29 percent). In fact, in 1946 and 1947, the Communists were France’s largest political party. In May 1947, the French government had five Communist ministers in its ruling coalition cabinet; the head of the Communist Party served as deputy premier, and a Communist served as minister of defense. In Italy the Communists and a collaborating Socialist Party received nearly 40 percent of the vote. In 1947 Truman administration officials such as George C. Marshall feared Soviet political trouble in Western Europe more than Soviet military actions: local Communist parties, manipulated by Moscow, might gain control as hungry and desperate people elected Communists to government or allowed them to seize power.[19]...Therefore, Western Europeans sought not only economic revival but also major security commitments. The U.S. explicitly made Europe’s security concerns its own. NATO, which General Marshall helped to launch, became central to American policy in Europe. This security alliance built on the transatlantic partnership begun by the ERP. The Marshall Plan’s reformist focus on self-help and its emphasis on mutual aid within the Atlantic community provided some of the psychological and structural steps that led to the North Atlantic Treaty.[41]
One historian of the Cold War has commented that, after the Marshall Plan began to have an effect, “Stalin could see that wherever he looked in Western Europe, his hopes for a Red future could not stand up to the will of the people, as demonstrated in fair elections, and [a Communist future in the region] would certainly be doomed if there were economic recovery.” By the same token, “partly because Stalin cut the Soviet Union out of the Marshall Plan, its economy fell behind Western Europe’s and never caught up. Ordinary people in the Soviet Union and its satellites paid the price.”[42]
Soviet practice in relation to Eastern Europe was worse than neglectful: while the United States was providing nearly $13 billion to assist Western Europe, the Soviet Union extracted about the same amount in resources from its Eastern European satellites, while depriving them of political freedom and economic opportunity. Niall Ferguson writes that “to West Europeans struggling to make ends meet,” the Marshall Plan “was the most visible manifestation of American good will—and a mirror image of the Soviet policy of mulcting Eastern Europe.”[43]
Vernon A. Walters, an assistant to Averell Harriman (the ERP’s special representative in Europe) and later ambassador to the United Nations, declared that “the most important achievement of the Marshall Plan was not so much the material aid it gave as the rekindling of hope, the rekindling of energy.”[44] This renewed confidence was not a merely spiritual asset. The psychological impact of the Marshall Plan probably prevented a Communist victory in Italy’s parliamentary elections in May 1948; and, although it remained a force in European political life, Communism as a real threat to democratic institutions diminished—most apparently in France, Germany, and Italy.
https://home.isi.org/marshall-planbr-conservative-reform-abr-weapon-war
McCarthy did his best to derail the plan, but to no avail, as numerous republican congressmen saw that it was essential to stopping Soviet expansion.
(regarding Hoover's repeated attempts to stop the civil rights movement)
Yep. Hoover's greatest failure. In the end, Martin Luther King triumphed, and Hoover ended up being exposed.
Hoover wasn't left-wing. He seems to have been pretty much indifferent except where his own quest for power was concerned. He repeatedly denied the existence of organized crime during the heyday of the Mafia; it seems to have scared him, and he left it alone to grow.
With the lying, racist not wanting to talk about the Venona Intercepts and how communists infiltrated not only the State Dept., but academia and Hollywood as well, aCW moves onto the smear against J. Edgar Hoover:
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
We're talking about depriving American citizens of their constitutional rights without Due Process of the law.
Once again (for those that don't catch on quickly) :
J Edgar Hoover was the lone voice in the FDR administration that spoke out against this:
http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/Japanese-Internment-Hero-AB.jpeg
Heck, even your beloved baby murdering/sodomite loving ACLU gave Hoover an award for standing up for the rights of American citizens. But then he made the grave mistake of exposing communists, and as we know, an organization that was founded by communists couldn't have that.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
We're talking about depriving American citizens of their constitutional rights without Due Process of the law.
Once again (for those that don't catch on quickly) :
J Edgar Hoover was the lone voice in the FDR administration that spoke out against this:
http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/Japanese-Internment-Hero-AB.jpeg
Heck, even your beloved baby murdering/sodomite loving ACLU gave Hoover an award for standing up for the rights of American citizens. But then he made the grave mistake of exposing communists, and as we know, an organization that was founded by communists couldn't have that.
SUTG
New member
The answer is.... it doesn't justify it! But you know that, and I know that. You just want to pretend that I said it did justify it, for some reason. Maybe you were going to try and explain to everyone how wrong I was about thinking it was justified. Sorry to ruin that for you.
You may want to take up your strategy with Jonahdog. Maybe he really does think it's justified.
MarcATL
New member
Speaking as a black person living in America, I don't think black people agree with you.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk